Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most Mechistas, Aztlanistas and other political groups are usually ran by "young" people from the ages of 16-30, usually American born. I agree with their philanthropist side, not what they stand for.
30 years old is not young, younger than me for sure but, they are an adult and should face the consequences of their traitorous actions none the less.
Here in Arizona when the authorities are looking for a suspect; they will use terms like 'Hispanic, Anglo', etc.
Never mind that I have known 'Hispanics' who were unabashed White as well as Anglos who looked stereotypically Latino/a.
Well, I never lived in Arizona so you'd know much more than myself. You could be right. I just don't meet white European-Americans who call themselves that though. It's always in third-person. Maybe cops do it to label suspects. They say ''Anglo'' probably to not challenge the whiteness of ''Hispanics'', especially considering people of Mexican descent are well integrated into the political system and local media of those respective areas in the southwest. It could be done visa versa to protect that ''whiteness'' too.
By that, they could say ''white'' and ''white Hispanic.'' When living in Florida, I noticed this was a little more common. You rarely heard that or anything involving the word Hispanic or anything in the Tampa area. In fact, a police department a relative of mine used to work in Florida noticed that it was actually not allowed to identify a suspect or missing person as ''Hispanic.'' You were aloud to mark white, black, Asian, other. It was amazing how a typically behind place in Florida could be more politically correct than an advanced place like New York City. In New York City, having a suspect identified as Hispanic is really common.
In fact the New York media allows such prejudice and assumptive description that they'll say white or ''light-skinned'' Hispanic, black or ''dark-skinned Hispanic.'' How could you depend on people to know who's what? Especially Americans that don't necessarily pick up so quickly. You'd have to really look to know the difference between a Euro-American and a Euro-descended Latin American. You'd probably still be wrong though. I always found it rather odd that they'd do this - when there is a reputation in New York that looking at someone too long could land you a punch in the face.
There is a larger division between the way people look though, so it's understandable why they might do this. Plus, in a lot of areas in the southwest - with the exception of a small black and Asian population, it seems like that could be the only groups to exist. ''Anglo'' is just the protective way of Mexican's whiteness by grouping up all European-American Christians are one. Maybe if Latin American immigrants were living in a place with more diversity within European-Americans, the difference wouldn't be as commonly obvious. This is especially true considering most of those immigrants in a state like Arizona are Mexican, and most are either of indigenous descent, Meztiso or bloodlines that lean more indigenous than Spaniard.
It'd probably a lot easier for a person of Latin American descent to look like a typical white American, considering both of them are white and no Latino ethnicity actually exists. As for European-Americans looking like the stereotypical ''Latino/Latina'', none of us would even understand what that image is supposed to look like. I'm sure in Arizona or New Mexico it's a lot different than New Jersey or Pennsylvania. Even within both of those state examples, you couldn't even come to understand one clear look - as there are so many different, kind of like Americans in general.
So if a cop were to identify someone as ''Hispanic'' regardless of what they were if they committed a crime, I couldn't blame anyone if they weren't to get caught. To everyone, that appears to be different. The reason why is because it's one an ethnicity, one group, one look or anything. It's all a bunch of bull. Just because Americans buy into such a non-sophicticated simple categorization, doesn't mean it's politically correct.
Hispanis was at one time the politically correct word to use . My how times change.As I remember it was mexicans themselves who said it was the right word.
Well, I don't know what year exactly that was used to me. Typically, it's just simple sociology to understand that something probably won't be the right word if people didn't create it themselves. The government implemented it themselves. It was designed as a technicality that could be transformed into a political device. The more the tool grew though, they felt it would be valuable to integrate it into our system so it could acquire some sort of public recognition.
Hispanic, Latino or anything that unifies Latin American immigrants, American-born people of Latin-American descent and Mexican immigrants/Mexican-Americans isn't healthy. There is no unifier, as their shouldn't be. People don't need and do that in Latin America, so if they even cared about their culture that prides itself upon their individualism, than they'd understand this would actually be a counterculture to them. However, I have observed that most people of Latin American descent don't just not used this term - but don't understand it more than the average American. In fact, most people who use it are European-American suburban
In fact, most people who use it are European-American suburban white people who are trying to sound ''politically correct or intelligent.'' If they actually were intelligent though, they'd realize it's obvious ignorance. Basically, this term will continue to lose it's credibility regardless. It's possible new things will come around, but I doubt they'll have credibility either.
So I didn't confuse anyone, I accidentally put the message in too early which is why I continued it.
i speak to you as a 4th generation mexican american and can honestly say that you will see no difference provided that you SEAL THAT BORDER! this country needs to give the current batch of legal immigrants the chance to "mix in the stew" and stop letting the flood of impoverished mexicans into the country. until then, we won't ever have the chance to "catch up" with the rest of america b/c we will always be dragged down by the underclass of ppl constantly sneaking in. in the history of the US, immigration was abruptly halted in 1924. this allowed the millions of immigrants already here to acculturate and assimilate successfully. as long as there are huge #s of illegals coming in, there will always be the ethnocentric lobbying groups like LULAC, Natl council of la raza, etc. who will create rifts in american society by pandering to those who are here illegally, who constantly lobby for continued programs and benefits for ppl who fail to contribute to the system.
''we won't ever have the chance to "catch up" with the rest of america''
Well, you make a good point. But a Mexican immigrant, legal or illegal, is much different than both of us. I'm a fourth generation American too. You aren't really acknowledged as Mexican, as I'm not as Italian. For that reason, you shouldn't say we as if you are apart of that. Your not fighting any battle upon catching up. Your heritage has nothing to do with your economic status, as it's obvious you, your parents and probably grandparents have been fully assimilated into American culture like mine.
Americans of Mexican descent have more than caught up. Especially in California. Especially second, third and fourth generations. There is no catching up they need to do. Society needs to catch up or take care of this immigration problem so Mexican heritage and culture is more respected properly, but this will have nothing to do with ''catching up'' in any assimilative measure such as economics and education.
A similar ''abrupt'' should take place like 1924. Now just for illegal immigration, but for legal immigration. We need a time out to resolve our problems in this country that concern our own citizens. We should limit legal immigration likewise to Canada. By doing this, we wouldn't have to economically feed working-class immigrants - to maintain that their children will be equally as middle-class as an any other American. If we let in half as many legal immigrants, we'd basically cut the half that is least educated, has the least amount of skills and highest fertility rates - who it's economically feasible.
By no coincidence, that'd be Mexican immigrants would be the ones getting cut. A higher percentage of our immigrants would be Asian, Middle Eastern, Eastern European and groups that don't come poor nor uneducated. It's not so much that Latin America isn't educated - because many indeed are there, but rather than the poorest there want Americanism. Middle and upper-middle class Asian and Middle-Easterners want this country for money they couldn't make in their own countries - especially in the medical field.
As you noted, securing our borders is necessary - but illegal immigration isn't what's killing this country. Our president's war, Americans and the big banks making the wrong decisions are the ones tearing this country apart. Legal immigration is just too much baggage - good or bad for us to handle. And there are much more of them than illegal immigrants, so it's being far overshadowed. By no coincidence, it doesn't shock me that few talk about legal immigration. It's because politicians don't. The only one who I think ever did at a nationally recognized level was Congressman Tancredo.
I don't get how these groups get away with using "minority" status for people who just walk over the border, and hey, now they're a minority who need special privileges!
That should ONLY be for citizens, and it was originally intended for African-Americans only because of our history. We have NO history with these illegals. That's like me going to Saudi Arabia, saying that I'm in the minority (duh), and asking for special privileges.
Where do these people get off?
''I don't get how these groups get away with using "minority" status for people who just walk over the border, and hey, now they're a minority who need special privileges!''
First off, they really don't use ''minority privileges.'' Don't take this the wrong way (because I'm European-American too), but from the tone of that statement - I'm guess you are European-American and have the belief that ''minority status'' could get you anything you want. It barely even exists. Being an immigrant is far more lucrative than being a ''minority.'' The programs created for them are far more funded and powerful. If I were wrong, why are immigrants assimilating quickly and blacks staying behind?
Immigrants aren't using that status, because they don't have to. It might be a little more common for first-generation Americans, but they're parents are still immigrants which is why they're pampered. However, by the second generation - you're on your own. And if you are of Latin American descent, why would you not be middle-class by the second generation? Or at least at the same percentage of how many European-Americans are middle class. Immigrants, an example of reform for illegal immigrants getting pampered example would be work-visa programs.
You don't see them recruiting inner-city blacks though. From a business point of view, maybe it wouldn't be the wise thing to do - but it would be the American thing to do. Money apparently means more than our flag though. Ironically though, our money is becoming less valuable and seemingly our flag too. These companies are willing to work with immigrants more, because they know they stereotypically worker harder and aren't poorly-spoken cry babies like inner-city blacks.
These people don't ask for ''special privileges.'' The government offers them and they take them. That'd be like you sitting at home on a Friday night with no money and having to make yourself a cheese sandwich. Or your wealthy neighbor offers you to buy you a few pies. Most aren't proud enough to deny that kind of offer.
Wehotex has a very good point. How about instead of just sealing the borders to illegals, why don't we have a temporary halt in immigration period? This would help the ones (legal) currently here assimilate into our culture (as I'm sure Wehotex has) and get on their feet economically. We already have a large population with a replacement level birthrate and millions of recent immigrants.
I'm only throwing this out there-I don't necessarily believe we should shut the borders to everyone. But maybe for a few years we could introduce requirements like a certain level of education, proof of impending employment in the US, and a English language course if you dont already know it.
Exactly. All of this would be wise. If we limited immigration, the immigrants who live here now would be able to assimilate easier. Plus, it'd allow our government to understand our problems more clearly. However, it doesn't seem like our politicians are interested in that. For one, it'd take a lot of fighting. Two, our military population is getting smaller - so a surplus of population allows that military population to be compensated for, which would prevent the idea of having a less powerful military or a draft.
Who says legal immigrants currently here are not asimilating into the culture?
They are. But who says all Americans are too? There's no doubt they'll continue to, but this costs money. Plus, a growing population means the resources American citizens will need will either go down or evaporate. The perfect example is a possible universal health care and social security. With social security though, it's been milked out more because of the baby boom generation and our government was either unprepared or wanted to get rid of it. Actually, immigrants assimilate far quicker than many lower and lower-middle class Americans because they're more motivated and got harder working parents.
If they didn't, they wouldn't come here. Educated immigrants do good for an economy when an economy is doing well. As long as it's contained, so the resources like socialized medicine in Canada and Europe aren't milked out. However, when a economy is sluggish - extra baggage just isn't needed - even if it's good. It's be like a pro baseball team taking on a guy getting paid 20 million a year at the trade deadline when they were 20 games below .500. It'd be smarter to focus our attention and money into our citizens who are behind - particularly like African-Americans we saw in the gulf region during the hurricanes.
The fact that a visa to go to Canada, Europe and other advanced countries are more contained than ours means that is more valued. If we rationed better, we'd make coming to this country seem more valuable. Upon the status quo, the rest of the world just views America as a place to make money. We like to kid ourselves into believing their here for our ''values'' and way of life, but it's about money. And many don't even want to stay here, but do anywhere because their kids who are raised here can't handle it anywhere else and they don't want to be apart. However, for Canada and Europe that actually have more meshed socialized represent a better and more advanced way of life. We'll eventually catch up to them, but it's an irritable wait.
It seems that people cant share life with "other skin color people", the whole issue is stupid, I wish America could look forward leaving behind all the stereotypes and fears that discrimination brings with it. I personally believe that all the "whatever-american" associations are just deviding the country and profiling ourselves. I dare all my fellow Americans to remain Americans ONLY, that will make of us the strongest country of the world, right?
It's just stupid anxiety. People on here don't even have that anxiety though. It was the question of it that screwed with peoples heads. People aren't that concerned about the new variation of physical appearances that could become more popular in this country. It's thinking about people will be thinking of it that's really screwing with their heads.
We'll handle this all fine. It's not like immigrants here challenge the system. And if they do, they don't suceed very well. They just assimilate. In other countries - especially in Europe, many of the Middle Eastern immigrants put up a fight to contain and integrate their culture into countries like France and Germany. That just isn't the case in this country. All of us will be fine, but until we all get our heads on our shoulders - I doubt we will be any where near the strongest country on the world. And personally, I could care less if we are the strongest country on the globe. It'd about being as good as we could be. If France, England, Canada and Japan are better - good for them. However, our country and it's value is only declining - especially economically, and no one seems to care to do anything except complain.
Unfortunately, we can't seem to have this segregation, AND have common values and goals so that we can be "one people". In order to have a united country, we need SOME things in common - usually, language is the first thing. If we don't even have that, we're in trouble, I think. We can't even communicate with each other![/quote]
You're right about the linguistic issue. However, look at New Brunswick and Quebec. Quebec is a primary French speaking territory, yet many know English. Visa versa with Ontario. And New Brunswick is equally both (they have provinces that lean one way or the other). I don't expect the average citizen of this country to develop a sense of bilingualism because it isn't our culture, but for those who already know the Spanish language - they should be encouraged to continue to speak it. It's valuable in the business world. Inevitably though, if you start Kindegarden in this country, your first-last name is automatically English. That's true regardless of what anyone says. What goes on in the house (unless your a hermit) doesn't mean much to the rest of the world.
We should find things that bring us together, more than divide us. If there is one thing that individual Latin American countries have that America doesn't, it is that. They probably even go to far, but they're proud to be one. They don't let stupid things like race or ethnicity interfere with that.
That segregation will die away with those immigrants, because immigrants will literally die. They're children will become middle-class American citizens. That segregation is true amongst inner-city African-Americans and no one seems to give a crap what ever happens to them - including themselves. To myself, I find that a significant downfall to our society - because African-Americans are some of our most American citizens. All the focus we put into immigrants who haven't even arrived here yet and Iraq should be into impoverished inner-city African-Americans and poor Americans of all backgrounds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
